Why Did Hillel Carry a Brief for Harvard on Antisemitism?

Hillel International’s move to withdraw its amicus brief in support of Harvard University in its row with the Trump Administration over antisemitism prompts us to ask — how in the world did it get filed in the first place? Harvard is fighting to keep some $2.7 billion in federal funding, which the government sought to freeze last year on account of “brazen” antisemitism on campus. It is shocking that Hillel considered swinging behind Harvard.Harvard has challenged the freeze, and Judge Allison Burroughs restored most of the funding this fall. The DOJ appealed to the First United States Appeals Circuit. Harvard’s own appellate brief acknowledges the “disturbing, offensive, and vile treatment of Jewish students” that transpired in the wake of October 7, 2023 but claims it has reestablished a “safe, fair, and welcoming environment for students, staff, and faculty of all religions and viewpoints.”Apparently, Hillel, which boasts that it is the “largest Jewish campus organization in the world,” is buying it. Its own brief to the First Circuit in support of Harvard castigated the Trump Administration for a “draconian one-size-fits-all” approach to antisemitism. Hillel asserts that “Harvard has begun to address” the world’s oldest hate and that “coercive measures do not help Jewish students or improve the campus climate.”Hillel’s brief acknowledges that antisemitic incidents increased “more than 1,000” percent nationwide between 2000 and 2025 but asserts that “Harvard is on the right track” because the nation’s oldest university is hard at work “fostering dialogue, collaboration, and education.” Hillel worries that the spending freeze “could worsen the Harvard experiences of the very same Jewish students and researchers the government says it is trying to protect.” Or does it? A day after the brief hit the First Circuit’s docket, a spokesman for Hillel International, Kenneth Baer, declared that the “brief was filed without having gone through our internal review process.” He asserted on Wednesday that “as soon as the court opens in the morning, we will move to withdraw it.” It was signed, though, by Hillel’s Senior Vice President for University Initiatives and General Counsel, Mark Rotenberg.Hillel’s motion to withdraw the brief asserts that “Unbeknownst to undersigned counsel” — Hillel’s lawyer, David Zimmer — “authorization to file the brief was provided to counsel without the brief having gone through a required internal review process within Hillel.” The actual brief, though, remains on the First Circuit’s docket and removing it is at the discretion of the circuit riders. The brief, well cited and typo free, hardly appears to be slapdash. Harvard Hillel, which is independent of Hillel International, tells the Crimson that it had no role in the brief. One erstwhile Harvard student who has sued the school for antisemitism, Shabbos Kestenbaum, called it “shocking.” A former visiting scholar who served on a Harvard antisemitism task force, Rabbi David Wolpe, summed up his experience on campus by noting that “ignoring Jewish suffering is evil” and a “vast and continuing catastrophe.”The abandoned brief contends that the Trump Administration “appears more interested in vastly reshaping universities — or even destroying them — than combating the specific problem of antisemitism within them.” Reasonable minds can disagree over methods Main Justice has brought to bear. Hillel, though, owes its students an explanation of why it sided with a school rife with antisemitism. It would have been better to have said nothing at all.

Why Did Hillel Carry a Brief for Harvard on Antisemitism?

Why Did Hillel Carry a Brief for Harvard on Antisemitism?

More from the New York Sun

Press Secretary Katie Zacharia Accused in Formal Complaint of Violating State Law by Lying About Her Legal Experience

Net Closes on Ilhan Omar’s Family: Subpoenas Issued, New Probe Into ‘Missing Millions,’ and Focus on Father’s Role in Dictatorship

Zelensky Accuses Trump of Betraying Ukraine After Starlink Turned Off and Drones Lost Mid-Mission

Pope Leo’s Cancer Diagnosis Puts His Powerful Pontificate in Question — and Raises Specter of Papal Succession

Mick Jagger: The 83-Year-Old Rolling Stone Who Rewrote the Rules of Aging

Dublin Hotel Cancels Reservations for Delegates Attending Antisemitism Conference

Ailing Basketball Star Held in Indonesia on Drug Conviction Begs Trump To Break Bureaucratic Gridlock

Metallica Takes Stand Against Divisive Politics at Concerts — and Activists Freak Out

More from the New York Sun

Press Secretary Katie Zacharia Accused in Formal Complaint of Violating State Law by Lying About Her Legal Experience

Net Closes on Ilhan Omar’s Family: Subpoenas Issued, New Probe Into ‘Missing Millions,’ and Focus on Father’s Role in Dictatorship

Zelensky Accuses Trump of Betraying Ukraine After Starlink Turned Off and Drones Lost Mid-Mission

Pope Leo’s Cancer Diagnosis Puts His Powerful Pontificate in Question — and Raises Specter of Papal Succession

Mick Jagger: The 83-Year-Old Rolling Stone Who Rewrote the Rules of Aging

Dublin Hotel Cancels Reservations for Delegates Attending Antisemitism Conference

Ailing Basketball Star Held in Indonesia on Drug Conviction Begs Trump To Break Bureaucratic Gridlock

Metallica Takes Stand Against Divisive Politics at Concerts — and Activists Freak Out